6/8/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In defense, the agency argued that Barit's contract of employment expired on July 23,
2001, without any complaint from her. Her contract was extended for another two years
with her consent. It alleged that Barit left her employer without permission. She was
then reported missing to the Saudi police who found her staying with Ambrosio. She
was subsequently arrested and imprisoned. Hameed was helpless in providing Barit
assistance because she violated marital law and the offense was non-employment
related. Her passport, air ticket and the balance of her unpaid salaries were turned over
to the Saudi authorities pursuant to Saudi law.
The agency denied liability for Barit's alleged unpaid salaries beginning July 2001 as her
employment contract, which it facilitated, was only for two years. The contract expired
on July 23, 2001. It maintained it had no involvement or participation in the alleged
extension of Barit's employment with Hameed. It also argued that it had no liability for
the refund of her airfare to the Philippines.
The agency argued further that it was not also liable for Barit's alleged wage
differentials from July 1999 to December 2000 and unpaid wages from January 2001 to
July 23, 2001. It pointed out that all wages due her were paid in full, while the final
wages due her before she left her employment were turned over to the Saudi
government. It stressed that it was highly illogical for Barit to agree to an extension of
her employment contract with the same employer who, she claimed, had not paid her
salaries and underpaid her wages in the past two years of her contract.
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
On March 31, 2004, Labor Arbiter Nieves Vivar-de Castro found Barit's money claims
meritorious. [6] She directed the agency and its foreign principal to pay Barit salary
differentials from July 23, 1999 to December 31, 2000 and her unpaid salaries from
January 2001 to July 23, 2001. The labor arbiter, however, absolved the agency of
liability for Barit's alleged unpaid benefits during her second or extended employment
as it did not participate or intervene in securing this extended posting.
The agency appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In its
decision dated August 28, 2006, [7] the NLRC granted the appeal. It set aside the labor
arbiter's ruling and dismissed the complaint, but awarded Barit financial assistance of
P10,000.00 "for reasons of equity." In the main, the labor arbitration body rejected
Barit's submission that she was compelled to leave Hameed because he had been
underpaying and was not paying her salaries. The NLRC did not believe that she would
agree to continue working for the same employer for another ten (10) months, when
the employer had not been paying her salaries before and during her extended
employment.
Barit moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion in a resolution dated
March 30, 2007. [8] She then sought relief from the CA through a petition for certiorari,
charging the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the labor arbiter's
decision, and in holding that the agency is not solidarily liable with her employer for the
underpayment and non-payment of her wages.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32168
2/9